> This is such a weird point to make

I think it is a great point to make, because if everyone really believed that AIs will do everything without human intervention in a handful of years, as the marketing repeats again and again (AGI, singularity, etc.) and have been saying for years... why then get bothered?

Because we DO know LLMs have their hallucinations, limitations, perform tasks not previously seen way worse than humans, etc. And it seems that, for now, there is not a good or magic solution to it, it is inherent limitations of the paradigm.

Yes, you can feed more and more and more (curated data) and eventually make AIs excellent at task X or Y, but then you spend your time specializing those engines. So the work does not really disappear, it just shifts and you make it more replicable for a bound set of problems.

Needless to say that at some point I prefer to learn (and combine with AIs, it is ok) than acritically getting inputs from something until I become totally useless.

Unless we have a paradigm for which a fully autonomous AI can do everything, this will just become improving our productivity in some ways, with all the in-between bottlenecks that it has.

Why spend money and time making the new flagship model when a future flagship model can make you the flagship model?

> inherent limitations of the paradigm

This is such a weird point to make. We are currently ( only ) discovering that paradigm; we are not inventing anything. We found a bunch of laws that produce rather cool results but our paradigm is incomplete which leads more or less wordy or frame-rich weird stuff like hallucinations, singularity and so on ... it's childish, really and on that funny pseudo-profound, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-spiritual ( personal opinion, if it gets you horny, you go, baby ) "universe consciousness unity, Rick James, bitch" level ...

Our bodies and minds need proper AI, not all the stuff we already outsource to middle and/or passionate men and women. Other species on the planet would certainly like to see us get augmented by AI so we can solve as many survivability issues as possible to keep as many ecosystems running long enough ... whatever that means but whether animals and plants are aware of chance and potential is another philosophical debate.

To individuals, software is a hammer and chisel, a knife, a brush and canvas, pen and paper, a reading help, and to a good amount of people it's a microscope and a fine scalpel.

To collectives, it's a tool to work on consensus and conventions, to share and gather.

It's baby steps for civilizations and it looks like our particular species is gonna get stuck in a puddle of our own monkey shit, with bottles of champagne in our hands and monkeys grinding up and down the few ivory towers in proximity.

> why then get bothered

Humans are on different levels. Most have decided that "nature realized the/a bug and wanted someone dead" or "their survival is a matter of chance" is not acceptable at all and some people decided that sabotage, poison, abuse, rape, murder are acceptable means to get chicken shit ...

The "paradigm" of life is far from explored/discovered, so we simply can't content ourselves with presumptions about inherent limitations of the LLM and AI paradigm for any other reason than to uncover ( not invent ) other parts of the paradigm.

We are happy with what AI can do for us but "AIs will do everything without human intervention" sounds weird because babies are born and the older they get and the less sabotaged ( vs influence, cultural manipulation ) they get to grow up, the more breadth and depth humans want to experience. For this they need to learn and use their hands & fingers. They need to feed body and mind to find what triggers what, and what excitement and curiosity are inherent and which can or need to be added/acquired/experienced extrinsically.

How many associations will we be able to make if AIs will do everything without human intervention?